Blaming Russians

[msmob]

Rather than pollute a new member's thread - and to save ML from further embarrassment -  I'm responding here:



What we have below is nothing more than simplistic bollox from a guy who should know better.. This is the link back :

http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=22363.msg474056#msg474056


"The lady asked: "What is your attitude to/opinion of the life and people over here? "

Moby: "Really are you seriously going to blame a whole nation's population for the acts of their President / govt ?"


Yes, when a country's president enjoys overwhelming support from the citizens, then they carry full responsibility for the acts of such leaders.

There are those who (1) actively support Putin, and there are those who (2) by their inaction tacitly approve of and support Putin.

There exists only a small minority of Russian citizens who do not fall into one of these 2 categories."


ML - as you won't go to Russia and have a policy of avoiding Russians ( you have posted that on here ) why don't you follow your real life behaviour on HERE instead of tarring all RU citizens with the same brush?

Members will know I am no 'fan' of V V P - I think he is taking Russia on a path of destabilising neighbouring nations with the aim to ultimately re-establish Moscow control


But to 'blame' Russians - in general - esp those who do not support him is plain ignorant.

[ML]

But to 'blame' Russians - in general - esp those who do not support him is plain ignorant.

I do not blame Russians who do not support him, and you know this very well.

I clearly showed, and you quoted, my three categories.

"There are those who (1) actively support Putin, and there are those who (2) by their inaction tacitly approve of and support Putin.

(3) There exists only a small minority of Russian citizens who do not fall into one of these 2 categories."

[fathertime]

I do not blame Russians who do not support him, and you know this very well.

I clearly showed, and you quoted, my three categories.

"There are those who (1) actively support Putin, and there are those who (2) by their inaction tacitly approve of and support Putin.

(3) There exists only a small minority of Russian citizens who do not fall into one of these 2 categories."

Don't forget another category (4.) Non Russians that tacitly approve of Putin,  Donald Trump and many Americans fit into that category.

Fathertime! 

[msmob]

I do not blame Russians who do not support him, and you know this very well.

I clearly showed, and you quoted, my three categories.

"There are those who (1) actively support Putin, and there are those who (2) by their inaction tacitly approve of and support Putin.

(3) There exists only a small minority of Russian citizens who do not fall into one of these 2 categories."

Indeed, but you don't GO to Russia or interact with Russians there -yet take ( sorry) ignorant pops at  a Russian on a newbie's intro thread when she asked the question what do you think of Russians?

You might at least have 'bitten on it' until she settled in?

FYI : there s a 4th and fifth category of Russian:

4/ apolitical - because they genuinely feel that there is NOTHING they can do to change their countty's system and THAT is exactly what VVP wanted...  They know that from the top down the system is corrupt.. ( including the Police and legal system) and the way the system is set up almost impossible to fight if one falls foul of it. They just want to get on with their lives. - feeling that life is better than the late 80's and early nineties.

5/ Those that would like a more open political system - but the state ensures that new parties, new opponents cannot meet in the places they want and get only negative publicity - leaders with the potential to be a 'problem' ( win a sizeable vote) are  found guilty of corrupt practices and excluded from the (official) political arena

ML, you were talking out you arse, mate. Unless you go there - regularly - you just won't see it.

[ML]

FYI : there s a 4th and fifth category of Russian:

No . . . these two are merely subsets of my number 2.  Regardless of the reasons, and harsh as it may seem . . . they are number two's.

[Davo2]

Mine falls into 4. She's frustrated by the state and corruption, but realises it's a complicated issue. When talking about politics she chooses her words wisely and occasionally she seems worried about the direction of our conversation and says " we must now change the subject" ... She has stated that "We must still be careful"

Funny enough when  Americas political system was discussed her statement was " At least all Russians are smart enough to know our politics are corrupt.... Americans are too stupid to see their government is corrupt and owned by big business" .... She doesn't particularly like America
Right or wrong, Russians aren't the only critical people of the US ... if you talk to the average man on the street in many western countries they view America as being as corrupt as Russia in many respects.

[Boethius]

If American politics were as corrupt as your Russian friend believes, Donald Trump would not be president.

[msmob]

No . . . these two are merely subsets of my number 2.  Regardless of the reasons, and harsh as it may seem . . . they are number two's.

Harsh = WRONG ... as I said ... you don't go there .... I do ....

[BillyB]

If American politics were as corrupt as your Russian friend believes, Donald Trump would not be president.

People are more likely to be accepting of their corrupt government, less likely to rebel and install democracy when they believe governments in Western nations are just as corrupt as theirs is. They believe people everywhere is living with as much pain as they are and the grass isn't greener on the other side.

[msmob]

People are more likely to be accepting of their corrupt government, less likely to rebel and install democracy when they believe governments in Western nations are just as corrupt as theirs is. They believe people everywhere is living with as much pain as they are and the grass isn't greener on the other side.

No...'they' don't... when were YOU last in Russia ?

[BillyB]

No...'they' don't... when were YOU last in Russia ?

Moby, I haven't had the luxury of interviewing 140+ million people like you did to understand the true pulse of a nation. Besides, I don't have the gift of gab like you do. I wasn't even talking Russia specifically but there are reliable polls there that show the majority of people accept Putin and the corrupt government he's in charge of. A lot of Russians and even Ukrainians do believe most things are better or at least equal there than where I live and thus they do not believe the grass is greener in America.

[msmob]

Moby, I haven't had the luxury of interviewing 140+ million people like you did to understand the true pulse of a nation.

Was that it ... your 'best shot', your 'excuse' for continued ignorance ?

Besides, I don't have the gift of gab like you do.

Er, BillyB.... to observe the things you so clearly miss - one has to be there ..LISTEN ...Observe... 

I wasn't even talking Russia specifically but there are reliable polls there that show the majority of people accept Putin and the corrupt government he's in charge of.

'Accept' ... I think I put the reasoning behind this 'acceptance' quite well ...  Russians don't want chaos

A lot of Russians and even Ukrainians do believe most things are better or at least equal there than where I live and thus they do not believe the grass is greener in America.

For once, I agree with you ( in their outlook ) and that's a problem for USA'ians to put right ...    Right know, more women want Europe or the Antipodes

 

[BillyB]

For once, I agree with you
 

 You can't agree with me because I haven't been in Russia as much as you have so everything I say must be wrong.

Er, BillyB.... to observe the things you so clearly miss - one has to be there ..LISTEN ...Observe... 
 

Look Moby, you lived in the UK most of your life and you didn't even know most of your fellow citizens wanted Brexit before the vote so you're not the best judge when reading the pulse of a nation.

[msmob]

 You can't agree with me because I haven't been in Russia as much as you have so everything I say must be wrong.

That inner child in you is taking control..

Look Moby, you lived in the UK most of your life

I did ? ....

and you didn't even know most of your fellow citizens wanted Brexit before the vote so you're not the best judge when reading the pulse of a nation.

It's precisely because I haven't lived so much in the UK that I understood the importance of a remaining .... 

[BillyB]

It's precisely because I haven't lived so much in the UK that I understood the importance of a remaining ....

So what you're saying is because you're on the outside looking in, you have a fantastic view of what's going on inside and know what's best for the people there. But that doesn't apply to me and others being outside of Russia when making comments on what goes on in the inside. 

[Boethius]

ML... people have been bumping ff each other for political and 'biziness ' reasons in UA before and after Yanu' had to escape justice for his family raiding the coffers of the state.

But the population usually doesn't go out to protest that.  Although I have posted here in the past, and firmly believe, that Maidan was orchestrated by oligarchs fearful of their own power waning, Yanukovych also was not merely using his power for money.  He illegally changed the constitution, illegally removed judges from the Supreme Court of Ukraine (and that court had been independent and uncorrupted before he did that), illegally closed banks, etc.

When Yanu' ran and Poroshenko and co took over it WAS represented by a high percentage of rather extreme nationalists and some of them proposed banning Russian...

No, I disagree with this.  There was never a threat of banning Russian.  The proposal was to not make Russian a state language, with Russian speakers having the right to government services in Russian.  There was never a proposed ban of Russian language schools, for example, or Russian media. 

In 1990, had you visited Kyiv and spoken Ukrainian,  you would be looked at as a hick.  People would say they didn’t understand you.  Now, although Russian is still the predominant language of Kyiv, if  you speak Ukrainian, people will answer you in Ukrainian.  The "stigma" of using a language spoken by tens of millions of people has been removed. 

Had Ukrainian language not been artificially suppressed by policies of Russification going back over two hundred years, I would say this should not have been an issue.  But it was, and Ukrainian needed to be put on an equal footing.

In less than a generation, Ukrainian has made a resurgence.  I think the language requires another generation to truly be established.  If Ukraine were on a course to EU membership, minority languages would have to be given rights.  But if not, then perhaps Russian would be given official language status once the Ukrainian language has been solidified.

Many Russian speakers will argue that Ukrainian language policies are "artificial", in that they favour an indigenous language over a language that is more broadly spoken.  However, those same speakers never acknowledge that Russian is widely spoken because of (a) policies of intense Russification in the past; and (b) the removal of indigenous Ukrainian populations and replacing them with Russians (also part of the policy of Russification).

They played RIGHT into Moscow's hands and Crimea was whipped away from under their noses - a long planned stunt - that has diverted attention away from the economic woes.

Crimea was invaded.  It had the status of an autonomous republic in Ukraine, with its own parliament, so Maidan had zero effect on Crimea.

Civilized countries do not invade sovereign nations, be they Ukraine or Iraq.

So have I and probably more recently than you and I CAN understand Russian considerably better than you.

It doesn't matter.  Crimea was illegally invaded, and there would have been no war in Donbas without the foreign "leaders" in Donbas - Strelkov, Girkin, Bashirov, Antiyufeev, Boroday, Kavtaradze, all Russian nationals and residents of Russia.

We - the west - played right into the hands of the Kremlin - who had long suggested 'we' sought to 'control Kyiv' and even had desires on turning Crimea into a NATO base ))

No, I disagree with this.  Had "we" tried to control Kyiv, Yanukovych never would have been elected. Lazarenko would not have been jailed in the USA for theft and money laundering, and Kuchma would never have been president.

There was no plan for NATO bases in Crimea.  Keep in mind, in the past, NATO and Russia held joint military exercises.

How Yanu' was removed - even though his own Party of Regions disowned him was played on - heavily - by Moscow- as 'illegal' .... speaking of 'Nazis' and 'Juntas' ...

But it wasn't.  His removal was voted on in the Rada.  Now, I will acknowledge that there was some coercion in that vote, but it would not have occurred at all had there not been bloodshed on Maidan.

IF you'd been to Crimea with your eyes and eyes open you'd have seen that most folks spoke Russian - in the Russian way and still felt Russian .....   There was - of course - no way - with 30K service personnel on the peninsula that folks there were under 'threat' and the take over WAS military - followed by a 'referendum' that was NO WAY 97 percent - but was always going to be a majority - based on ethnicity

Given their autonomous status, how is this relevant?

Ukrainians and Russians see what their respective govts want them to see  - never both sides...

But there aren't "two" sides.

FTR, I predicted that corruption would increase under Poroshenko.  One thing I know is how former commies think.  Especially in Ukraine.  And yes, there were provocative acts by Western Ukrainian politicians, mostly against Akhmetov's interests.  But no plane full of innocents would have been blown from the sky without Russian missiles, and tens of thousands would not be dead without Russian military advisors and leaders, soldiers and military equipment in Donbas.  The skirmish would have been restricted to the mafia style hits that always occurred in that region, with hundreds, not thousands, of innocent victims caught in the crossfire.

[msmob]

So what you're saying is because you're on the outside looking in

No....  You are mistaken .. I saw the benefits and downsides - and STILL realised which was a better future for my kids ...

[msmob]

Off to bed, Boethius - but there is much to 'discuss' about your post, tomorrow !

[Boethius]

People who were born in Crimea in USSR and grew up and became a part of Ukraine, then a part of Russia are now happy. It is what people living there say. The natives who are russian in their blood. What about the power blackout in 2015 by anti-russian activists? The whole peninsular was cut off from electricity and cooked shashlik for the whole week because they could not store meat anymore without electricity.

And what about cutting gas to Ukraine?  Same argument, same rationales.

The issue is not to which country Crimeans wish to belong.  Had Crimeans voted in an independent referendum to join Russia, they could have done so, just as Quebecers have voted on secession, as have Czechs and Slovaks.

As I stated previously, civilized countries, those governed by a rule of law, do not invade sovereign nations. 

[Munshidasmanohar]

Presence of guns? I am so sorry to continue this conversation, but I feel that I have to. I was born in Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, have lived all my life here, my mother was born in Belarus, I studied the political history, have lots of friends and relatives, have been to Crimea at our friend's home who was finally glad to live again in the same country with her own son.

Let us look back into the history

http://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%
9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%
BE%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%
BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%
B5_%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%
BC%D0%B0_%D0%BA_%D0%A0%D0
%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%
B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9
_%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8

К XVI веку Османская империя перешла к стратегической обороне, основными компонентами которой было строительство крепостей в устьях рек, создание своего рода буферной зоны — безлюдной территории «Дикого поля», перенос вооружённой борьбы с северными соседями — Польшей и Россией — вглубь польских и российских владений, используя для этого зависимое от неё Крымское ханство[3].

С конца XV века Крымское ханство совершало постоянные набеги на Русское государство и Речь Посполитую. Основная цель набегов — захват рабов и их перепродажа на турецких рынках. Общее число рабов, прошедших через крымские рынки, оценивается в три миллиона человек[4].

By the 16th century the Ottoman Empire shifted to strategic defense, the main components of which were the construction of fortresses in the mouths of rivers, the creation of a kind of buffer zone - the uninhabited territory of the Wild Field, the transfer of armed struggle against its northern neighbors - Poland and Russia - deep into the Polish and Russian possessions, using for this the Crimean Khanate, which was dependent on it.

Since the end of the XV century, the Crimean Khanate made constant raids on Russian state and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The main purpose of the raids is to capture slaves and resell them in Turkish markets.

Russo-Turkish war 1768-1774

http://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0
%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA
%D0%BE-%D1%82%D1%83%D1%
80%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%
B0%D1%8F_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%
B9%D0%BD%D0%B0_(1768%E2%80%941774)

21 июля 1774 года Османская империя вынуждена была подписать с Россией Кючук-Кайнарджийский договор. В результате войны, закончившейся победой Российской империи, в её состав вошли первые земли в Крыму — крепости Керчь и Еникале (остальной Крым был присоединён к России на 9 лет позже — в 1783 году), на северном побережье Чёрного моря — Кинбурн с прилегающими территориями, а также Азов и Кабарда. Крымское ханство формально обрело независимость под протекторатом России. Россия получила право вести торговлю и обладать военным флотом на Чёрном море.

The war resulted in Russian Empire acquiring some parts of Crimea. The rest part of it was annexed 9 years later in 1783.
The Crimean Khanate formally gained independence under the protectorate of Russia.

http://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%
98%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%
80%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%9A%D1
%80%D1%8B%D0%BC%D0%B0

The modern history of the Crimea begins with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire by Catherine the Great in 1783 and the handing over of the Crimea by the Ottoman Empire to Russia as part of the Treaty provision. After two centuries of conflict, the Russian fleet had destroyed the Ottoman navy and the Russian army had inflicted heavy defeats on the Ottoman land forces.

Annexation of Crimea by Russian Empire

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Empire

The territory of Crimea, previously controlled by the Crimean Khanate, was annexed by the Russian Empire on 19 April [O.S. 8 April] 1783.[1] The period before the annexation was marked by Russian interference in Crimean affairs, a series of revolts by Crimean Tatars, and Ottoman ambivalence. The annexation began many years of Russian rule in Crimea, which ended with the transfer of the territory to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954. Russia annexed Crimea for a second time in March 2014, though that annexation is not recognised internationally.[2][3]

In soviet times we were basically the same government with the Ukraine.

Belarus and Ukraine also for the first time gained statehood as a consequence of the Great October Revolution in the USSR republics. And only in 1991 (also from Russia) they gained their full independence.

There were several attempts by Crimea to get back to Russia in the history after it had been separated from us. Even Sevastopol wasn't really Ukrainian by status though it stopped being Russian as well. There have been issues over that territory for all these years: P.S. sorry, i am not translating the articles because it is too much.
You can use the google translator, not just a different language version of this website if you like to get deeper into the topic.

Transfer of Crimea in 1954
http://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0
%9F%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%
D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%
B0_%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%8B
%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%BA%D0
%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BE%D0%B1
%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%
82%D0%B8_%D0%B8%D0%B7_%
D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%
82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0
_%D0%A0%D0%A1%D0%A4
%D0%A1%D0%A0_%D0%B2_
%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%
D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2_%
D0%A3%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A0

1 октября 1991 Президиум Верховного Совета Крыма выступил с заявлением, в котором назвал акт передачи Крыма Украине в 1954 году совершённым «без учета мнения народа», и, отметив, что в сложившейся ситуации «мы не считали бы оправданным ставить сегодня вопрос о пересмотре границ», призвал «уважать право крымчан строить свою государственность на основе референдума, если это будет вызвано изменением политической ситуации»[32]. 22 ноября парламент Крыма рассматривал возможность обращения к президенту СССР Михаилу Горбачёву с просьбой об отмене указа Президиума ВС СССР 1954 года о передаче Крыма в состав Украинской ССР, однако решение принято не было[33].

В результате обострения противостояния на Украине в феврале 2014 года председатель Верховного Совета Крыма Владимир Константинов заявил, что в случае смещения центральной власти Украины, парламент АР Крым может денонсировать решение Президиума ЦК КПСС от 1954 года о передаче Крыма Украине[39][Комм 2]. В декабре 2014 года он назвал присоединение Крыма к Российской Федерации, осуществлённое в феврале—марте того же года, «исправлением исторической несправедливости 1954 года»[44].

Legal Status of Sevastopol

http://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%
D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B0%D0
%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%
BE%D0%B9_%D1%81%D1%
82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%83%
D1%81_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D0%
B2%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%
D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8F

Постановление Президиума Верховного Совета РСФСР от 5 февраля 1954 года «О передаче Крымской области из состава РСФСР в состав УССР», одноимённый Указ Президиума Верховного Совета СССР от 19 февраля 1954 года и Закон СССР от 26 апреля 1954 года по данному вопросу не содержат какого-либо упоминания о Севастополе.

В условиях противостояния президента и парламента России, вылившегося осенью 1993 года в разгон Верховного Совета, постановление Верховного Совета исполнено не было[38][39], а в принятой 12 декабря 1993 года Конституции Российской Федерации упоминание о Севастополе как субъекте Российской Федерации отсутствовало[40].

23 августа 1994 года Севастопольский городской совет народных депутатов провозгласил «российский статус города» и обратился к властям РФ и Украины с просьбой закрепить его[41]. Решение было отменено Верховной радой Украины[42][43].

The Sevastopol city council proclaimed the russian status of the city and asked Ukraine and Russia to legitimize it, but Supreme Council of Ukraine turned it down.

Not sure if you can read those articles in russian. Please use your google translator or ask me if you come across something you can't understand in those articles. I will try to help.
Just a little history between former parts of the same government.

Probably it is worth getting back to the very beginning, the times of us being just tribes on one land and times of Kievan Rus' and its earliest princes, who knows, maybe we will find some differences between how they teach us history at our schools and universities. But I don't feel like doing that after I graduated from school)))

The majority of Crimean population has never felt like ukrainian. Some were born there when it was russian before becoming ukrainian. So guns? Imagine you would use guns against your closest neighbours, who historically are people of the same country for more than a hundred years, some may be members of your families, speak the same language, and feel like russian. And after they are "seized" they get social privileges and support, when the resources that could have been spent on your people's social lives, (pensions and other) get spent on that "seized" region.







http://www.pravda.ru/politics/authority/18-03-2017/1327700-mneniya-0/

To cut it short, it was Crimean natives' own free will with the support of Russia. The only reason there could be russians with guns is to protect and keep the whole thing calm, in terms of the whole situation it must have been reasonable. Speaking of the Donbass, the western part of which is russian, in order to support the inhabitants of the Donbass, humanitarian aid was sent. What V.V. admits, is that the military in the Donbass that was mentioned in your post appeared there after people, including civillians, started being killed with the help of the tanks, artillery and systems of salvo fire. Would anyone say that those methods of war are acceptable?

People who were born in Crimea in USSR and grew up and became a part of Ukraine, then a part of Russia are now happy. It is what people living there say. The natives who are russian in their blood.
What about the power blackout in 2015 by anti-russian activists? The whole peninsular was cut off from electricity and cooked shashlik for the whole week because they could not store meat anymore without electricity.
Thank you for your attention. I suggest each of us keeps to his own opinion about the whole situation because it is how people's minds are controlled. And I am not into conflicts.
I am done.
 

Oh my. What a Pravda Propaganda writing here.

[Doll]

Everything that is against you opinion is propaganda. Rusophobia

[msmob]

Everything that is against you opinion is propaganda. Rusophobia

Doll,

It is SO tiring when a Russian who knows that the main 4 TV channels are either state-owned or owned by Oligarchs who are matey with the Kremlin refuses to accept that this level of media control is not a western practice and states cannot impose their 'news' on the public.

Even MORE tiring when a Russian who should know better suggests a phobia of Russians when in my case ) I question the nigh on utter bollox that the Kremlin was suggesting re the 'Nazi's' / 'Junta' which was confirmed into  power in elections that were free - save for Crimea and Donbas - where they couldn't happen

From MH17 to to the sh1t-stirring in Donbas and Odesa ...  The Kremlin PHYSICALLY interfered in a neighbour - simply because it saw it was losing it's influence.


With 25-30K RU military personnel in Crimea - due to the lease agreement - there was NO danger to the residents of the peninsula - unless one was pro Kyiv / or a Tatar ....  Ask yourself who died during the military take-over - any ethnic Russians? ... NO ...

Elena - it is a shame that your intro thread has been a political football - save to say I cannot agree with the version of how things unfolded in Donbas

Which western leader was suggesting parts of Russia cede from the RF in the manner VVP suggested re the people of 'novorossiya' (sic) ?

Why does the RF have laws about promotion of ceding from Russia - but it's own leader feels free to promote it in a neighbour ?

Why were GRU troops from Leningradsky Oblast breaking open the armouries in Donbas ?

You speak of a govt 'attacking it's own citizens' .. I guess you mean Kyiv's anti-terror campaign.... Did RU TV cover the people of Slovyansk - who were 'ruled' by the 'Rebels' ?

Why was it 'OK' for the RF to carpet bomb Groszny - killing may be 100k citizens - to control  a nation that never wanted to be part of the RF - but it was 'wrong' for Kyiv to try to establish order in Donbas ?

 

[Ludmila]

Just sayin'
Imperialism is an action that involves a country (usually an empire or a kingdom) extending its power by the acquisition of territories. It may also include the exploitation of these territories, an action that is linked to colonialism. Colonialism is generally regarded as an expression of imperialism.
It is different from New Imperialism, as the term imperialism is usually applied to the colonization of the Americas between the 15th and 19th centuries, as opposed to the expansion of Western Powers (and Japan) during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, both are examples of imperialism.

[Ludmila]

Especially for Brits ( Long Live the queen !):

The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom and its predecessor states. It originated with the overseas possessions and trading posts established by England between the late 16th and early 18th centuries. At its height, it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power.^[1] By 1913, the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23% of the world population at the time,^[2] and by 1920, it covered 35,500,000 km² (13,700,000 sq mi),^[3] 24% of the Earth's total land area.^[4]

[Ludmila]

avec mes meilleurs voeux

Аvec mes meilleurs voeux :
France had its "First colonial empire", that existed until 1814, by which time most of it had been lost, and its "Second colonial empire", which began with the conquest of Algiers in 1830 and came for the most part to an end with the granting of independence to Algeria in 1962.^[65] The French history was marked by numerous wars, large and small, and also by significant help to France itself from the colonials in the world wars.^[66]
During the 16th century, the French colonization of the Americas began with the creation of New France. It was followed by the establishment of trading posts in Asia and Africa in the 17th century.